Emergency department use by people with HIV in Ontario: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency department use may reflect poor access to primary care. Our objective was to compare rates and causes of emergency department use between adults living with and without HIV. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study involving Ontario residents living with and without HIV between Apr. 1, 2011, and Mar. 31, 2012. We frequency matched adults with HIV to 4 HIV-negative people by age, sex and census division, and used random-effects negative binomial regression to compare rates of emergency department use. We classified visits as low urgency or high urgency, and also examined visits for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Hospital admission following an emergency department visit was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: We identified 14 534 people with HIV and 58 136 HIV-negative individuals. Rates of emergency department use were higher among people with HIV (67.3 v. 31.2 visits per 100 person-years; adjusted rate ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51-1.65). Similar results were observed for low-urgency visits. With the exception of hypertension, visit rates for ambulatory care sensitive conditions were higher among people with HIV. People with HIV were also more likely than HIV-negative individuals to be admitted to hospital following an emergency department visit (adjusted odds ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.43-1.69). INTERPRETATION: Compared with HIV-negative individuals, people with HIV had high rates of emergency department use, including potentially avoidable visits. These findings strongly support the need for comprehensive care for people with HIV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".